80.186.81.123: exacerbate? simple english? consistency? lemme sleep sometime?

2003-11-24T20:59:22Z

exacerbate? simple english? consistency? lemme sleep sometime?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, 24 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	An '''improvement''', in [[patent]] law, is something that qualifies for a patent of its own. [[Required reintegration]] clauses in a [[software license]] (or presumably other types of [[license]] as well such as the [[GFDL]]) keep one unified "best version" licensed under the same terms as the original patent or copyrighted document.		An '''improvement''', in [[patent]] law, is something that qualifies for a patent of its own. [[Required reintegration]] clauses in a [[software license]] (or presumably other types of [[license]] as well such as the [[GFDL]]) keep one unified "best version" licensed under the same terms as the original patent or copyrighted document.

	The [[Consumerium License]] will have to specify how any [[improvement]] that is generated in the [[R&D wiki]] or [[opinion wiki]] or [[Consumerium maintenance]] etc. is to be documented, published, owned and integrated. To ignore this issue, as [[open source]] tries to do, is really quite a disaster and opens the door to a [[self-interested fork problem]] as various players and [[faction]]s all define their own "better versions" and patent them to prevent "the enemy" from using them. This in turn generates [[politics as usual]], which can be reduced somewhat by being clear about improvements from day one. Many [[threats]] and [[worst cases]] focus on this issue and how a [[fork]] can generate both improvements and ~~exacerbate~~ a [[bad copy problem]].		The [[Consumerium License]] will have to specify how any [[improvement]] that is generated in the [[R&D wiki]] or [[opinion wiki]] or [[Consumerium maintenance]] etc. is to be documented, published, owned and integrated. To ignore this issue, as [[open source]] tries to do, is really quite a disaster and opens the door to a [[self-interested fork problem]] as various players and [[faction]]s all define their own "better versions" and patent them to prevent "the enemy" from using them. This in turn generates [[politics as usual]], which can be reduced somewhat by being clear about improvements from day one. Many [[threats]] and [[worst cases]] focus on this issue and how a [[fork]] can generate both improvements and cause a [[bad copy problem]].

142.177.81.73: what it is legally, why it matters

2003-11-24T20:52:31Z

what it is legally, why it matters

New page

An '''improvement''', in [[patent]] law, is something that qualifies for a patent of its own. [[Required reintegration]] clauses in a [[software license]] (or presumably other types of [[license]] as well such as the [[GFDL]]) keep one unified "best version" licensed under the same terms as the original patent or copyrighted document.

The [[Consumerium License]] will have to specify how any [[improvement]] that is generated in the [[R&D wiki]] or [[opinion wiki]] or [[Consumerium maintenance]] etc. is to be documented, published, owned and integrated. To ignore this issue, as [[open source]] tries to do, is really quite a disaster and opens the door to a [[self-interested fork problem]] as various players and [[faction]]s all define their own "better versions" and patent them to prevent "the enemy" from using them. This in turn generates [[politics as usual]], which can be reduced somewhat by being clear about improvements from day one. Many [[threats]] and [[worst cases]] focus on this issue and how a [[fork]] can generate both improvements and exacerbate a [[bad copy problem]].

Improvement - Revision history

80.186.81.123: exacerbate? simple english? consistency? lemme sleep sometime?

142.177.81.73: what it is legally, why it matters